EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
2982

That Intelligent Design should be taught in school

(PRO)
WINNER!
5 points
(CON)
0 points
Victor BjerrumVictor Bjerrum (PRO)
We need to teach kids both sides of an argument and let them decide themselves, it is therefore important that intelligent design is taught i schools. If we don't teach them this the school is not neutral anymore and it picks a side over the other which can't be healthy for any kid. It also educates school kids on why people believe in what they do and can let to broad understanding between people. I don't see any downside to this being taught since it shows that people believe in different things and shouldn't be shamed for that.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-06-24 00:32:26
| Speak Round
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard (CON)
In this debate, I am arguing that, as of now, Intelligent Design should not be taught in schools. 

Definition

Intelligent Design- the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.
Teach- to cause or help (someone) to learn about a subject by giving lessons. 
Schools- I will be arguing for Public Schools.

Arguments

1. Intelligent Design is too undeveloped to teach.
2. Intelligent Design is a religious concept, which could undermine the separation of church and state.
3. Intelligent Design is not science. 

Intelligent Design is too undeveloped to teach

Intelligent Design as a theory is new. 
Here is what it states:

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Website: http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

Many Intelligent Design theorists still believe that evolution occurred, but that life began from an intelligence. Some believe an Intelligence may have guided some of the process instead of natural selection. There is much disagreement on what the designer designed among Intelligent Design Theorists. The theory just states that certain features of living things and universe are best explained by the design of an intelligence. The theory does not explain who the designer is, how the designer designed, or what the designer designed, just that there was a intelligent designer that did something in the far past. Evolution is a developed theory/model that explains all of the evidence. Intelligent Design is not a model, but just holds that a designer design certain things(which are not fully agreed on yet).

 Intelligent Design is a religious concept, which could undermine the separation of church and state

Like I said in the last argument, Intelligent Design is really only about a designer, and every Intelligent Design Theorist believes it is God, so it is really a way to push God on others in schools. This would promote Christianity/biblical creationism which would violate the separation of church and state, creating bias towards other religions. This would be discrimination towards other religions and people who practice them rather than to be fair. Contrary to what my opponent said, this would not be neutral. A better way to be neutral on beliefs in school is to teach the flaws of evolution with the evidence, which would make it less neutral instead of pushing a religious belief in our schools.

Intelligent Design is not science

Since intelligent Design is just about a designer designing certain features in the past, it is not observable or testable. No evidence can fit into it. "Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view[1][2] that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[3] Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses."
More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design 
Intelligent Design can only be accepted on faith, which should be kept out of school. It can not be supported by evidence. Evolution can be supported because it makes testable predictions. Intelligent Design makes one main assumption, that life came from an intelligence, which is not testable or supportable. Therefore, ID is not science. 

Response to opponent

I already pointed out that it would be better to teach the flaws of evolution than teach ID, so I believe I responded already. 



Thanks for reading.

I am looking forward to my opponents response. 

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-06-24 04:49:39
| Speak Round
Victor BjerrumVictor Bjerrum (PRO)
Arguments and flaws

1. Reliable source?
2. Quote from Argument 1 that talks against your second argument
3. Could Intelligent design open up new possibilities 

1. Reliable source? 
I can see that you have copy pasted a lot of your information from Wikipedia and even put a link to it as your source. Wikipedia is not a reliable source since anyone could have wrote it and we dont know said persons motives or if the person is for or against Intelligent Design to be taught in school.

2. Quote from Argument 1 that talks against your second argument
"The theory does not explain who the designer is, how the designer designed, or what the designer designed, just that there was a intelligent designer that did something in the far past" here you say that this theory don't evolve around a specific god and it can therefore be anyone. "Like I said in the last argument, Intelligent Design is really only about a designer, and every Intelligent Design Theorist believes it is God, so it is really a way to push God on others in schools. This would promote Christianity/biblical creationism which would violate the separation of church and state, creating bias towards other religions" why would it create bias against other religions if the theory dont imply that there is a specific creator but rather that we are created by some kind of intelligent being the theory is more of an answer to how rather than who and it therefore dont revolve around certain specific religions[1].

3. Could Intelligent design open up new possibilities 
I believe that the best education is an education were you don't just see one side of a debate, the youth need to know why people think like they do and they also need to know why that might not be plausible because of scientific reasons. The youth needs to form their own opinion and i don't think intelligent design have so many flaws it should be considered unteachable, even if it has a lot of flaws the youth need to learn about those and then make their decision on whether it is plausible or not. 

Source: 
[1] "https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/dec/01/evolution-curriculum-intelligent-design-school" by Alastair Noble 


Return To Top | Posted:
2016-06-24 13:59:47
| Speak Round
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard (CON)
In this round, I will respond to my opponents rebuttals.

Rebuttals: 

1. Wikipedia is an unreliable source.
2. Intelligent Design doesn't revolve around God.
3. Intelligent Design can open up new possibilities.


Wikipedia is an unreliable source

Here is what my opponent said, "I can see that you have copy pasted a lot of your information from Wikipedia and even put a link to it as your source. Wikipedia is not a reliable source since anyone could have wrote it and we dont know said persons motives or if the person is for or against Intelligent Design to be taught in school." 
First of all, I didn't copy and paste a lot of information from wikipedia, just a quote in one of my arguments, the rest was not from wikipedia. 
So, my opponent believes wikipedia is unreliable because it may be a biased source, however, there is a source in his arguments that says that ID should not be excluded from the study of origins(sounds biased to me), the point is, I don't see anything wrong with using a source that counts for you in a debate. Instead of focusing on reliability, I will focus on the truth of the statement. The quote from wikipedia I offered said that ID offers no testable or tenable hypothesis. This is true since it explains life came from a designer which can not be proven. The ID movement is really mostly about critiquing Darwinism and placing a designer as the explanation. My opponent never responded to that argument I made, so I won't go on it anymore. 

 Intelligent Design doesn't revolve around God

It is true the theory of ID doesn't explain God as the designer, just that there was one, but if you look at it closely, ID is an argument for God. 
If there was a designer in the past, then that designer must have come from somewhere, ID advocates argue that intelligent life could never have originated from natural processes, so intelligent life must have came from another intelligence. At some point, there has to be an uncaused cause(or undesigned designer), in other words, "God". This would have to be an eternal being, God is the only reasonable explanation. If ID is in school, it would be used as an argument for God, which would bring religion with it. This would violate the separation of church and state by bringing a religious argument into the schools teaching our children. Like I said in the last round, a better way to be neutral would to teach the flaws of evolution along with the evidence in schools. Since ID is mostly just a critique of Darwinism(which places a designer as the explanation), we would be teaching more than half what ID theorists already propose by teaching kids to criticize evolution. The rest of ID is just that there was a designer and the only reasonable explanation for it would be God, which could bring religious beliefs into the classroom. 

Intelligent Design can open up new possibilities

My opponent says students shouldn't just be taught one side of a debate, but both sides. The problem is, one side is religious in nature, and the other is based on scientific evidence. Religious arguments are not supportable by science, so they should stay out of the classroom. Evolution is supportable by evidence and is testable, so it should be taught and criticized. Intelligent Design is not scientific, so it should remain out of schools. Religious beliefs should be practiced out of school, and schools should give more of a choice in deciding whether evolution is a fact. Teaching something that is too undeveloped and religious in nature does not belong in school, especially in a secular state. Since ID is only about a untestable designer, it can't be taught about scientifically and criticized. This is not the best education.   


Thanks for Reading

I am looking forward to my opponents response. 

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-06-24 19:38:46
| Speak Round
Victor BjerrumVictor Bjerrum (PRO)
Final comments 

1. Why ID is not Christianity

2. Why ID should be taught 


1. Why ID is not Christianity.


While it is very true ID can be used as an argument for Christianity legitimization it can also very well be used as an argument for Aliens, Allah even the Flying Spaghetti Monster, The theory just states that humans have an intelligent designer that knew what he/she was doing and made us perfect. In fact you don't have to be religious at all maybe you just think aliens created us, which don't make you religious. Sure it will give some christian students some arguments, but i would much rather have them here it in a non biased environment like a school were the teachers shouldn't pick a specific side but rather point out the flaws in each of the arguments, than if they were to go on the internet and read something a really pro ID theorist has wrote .

2 Why ID should be taught. OK so my opponent says that we should remove all none scientific subjects from schools, but should we then remove all teaching and insight into religions in schools. I don't think removing stuff like that is the right way too go since it's of great importance to learn about other culture and to learn why people think the way they do. It is also important to learn about scientific subjects, but if we want a less biased world we should also be taught about how religion works and what the different religions teach so we don't end up with people making assumptions about other peoples beliefs. 

Thanks for the debate to my opponent, and best of luck.




Return To Top | Posted:
2016-06-24 20:48:06
| Speak Round
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard (CON)
Opponents arguments:

1. Intelligent Design is not Christianity.
2. Intelligent Design should be taught to understand the religious culture. 

Intelligent Design is not Christianity

My opponent argues that the designer in ID can be anyone, so it's not bias towards a particular religion. I argued in the last round that the only reasonable explanation for the designer in ID is God. If life could not have came as the result of natural causes and instead had an intelligent cause, then at some point there has to be an undesigned designer, which would be God. This would provide support for monotheism and religions, which would bring discussions of God and religion in our schools. This would violate the separation of church and state which is beneficial to our multicultural society, adding a theory that is religious in nature to our schools will bring debate on people's religions. Kid's are very impressionable, which may get some kids to believe in something contrary to their families beliefs. This would make many parents insecure with our public school system. Kids would want to know who the designer is, which would expose them to the religious arguments. A better way is to teach flaws in evolutionary theory instead of enforcing a religious argument in our schools. My opponent doesn't understand how much this would promote religious beliefs. 

Intelligent Design should be taught to understand the religious culture  

In the first round, I provided a definition of Intelligent Design. ID is supposed to be a scientific theory. My opponent went with the definition I provided without providing their own definition. So, I am assuming my definition in this debate. My opponent never tried to dispute my argument about ID not being science. Instead, my opponent says we should teach religion and cultures. So I believe my opponent is saying that ID should be taught under religion rather than science. The problem with this is that it fails to fall under the definition I provided and what he or she seemed to accept. Intelligent Design is supposed to be a scientific theory, which would belong in the science class. I argued before that ID wasn't really science, so it would fall under pseudoscience(presented as scientific but doesn't adhere to the scientific method). Pseudoscience doesn't belong in our science class(since it really isn't science), but doesn't belong in our cultural/religious history class either since its presented as science. ID is really supposed to be the scientific(really pseudoscience) argument for God's existence. Learning about the history and beliefs of religions would be great for our schools. But presenting an argument for God(which is what ID is) is promoting the monotheistic religions, not just learning about it. This would violate the separation of church and state by promoting religions.

My overall Case

1. Intelligent Design is too undeveloped to teach.
2. Intelligent Design is a religious concept, which could undermine the separation of church and state.
3. Intelligent Design is not science.    

I believe my case still stands after my opponents rebuttals. My opponent didn't respond to some of my case, and didn't provide his or her own definition of Intelligent Design. 
I would like thank my opponent for this debate, and good luck!


Thanks for reading

Vote CON!  

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-06-25 01:49:23
| Speak Round
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard (CON)
Interesting, I didn't know there was reply speeches at the end.

Summary

My arguments

1. Intelligent Design is too undeveloped to teach.
2. Intelligent Design is a religious concept, which could undermine the separation of church and state.
3. Intelligent Design is not science.

My opponents arguments 

1. Teaching Intelligent Design in schools would make teaching truly neutral.
2. Intelligent Design should be taught to increase understanding of other peoples views.


Rebuttals

Round 2

Opponent

1. Wikipedia is an unreliable source.
2. Intelligent Design would not create bias towards other religions.
3. Intelligent Design would help students understand both sides and their arguments, so they know why they believe what they believe.

Mine

1. Wikipedia quote is true.
2. Intelligent Design implies the existence of God and would create a bias towards the religions, undermining the separation of church and state.
3. Intelligent Design is a religious argument and is unscientific. 


Round 3

Opponent

1. Intelligent Design does not imply Christianity or God.
2. Intelligent Design should be taught to increase understanding of other peoples religious views and culture.

Mine 

1. Intelligent Design is an argument for God which would create bias toward religious beliefs and undermine the separation of church and state.
2. Intelligent Design is pseudoscience, so it doesn't belong in our schools.


Our models 

Mine

Teach the flaws of evolution along with the evidence but keep Intelligent Design out of public schools since its religiously bias.

Opponent

Teach both sides, it will make the schools more neutral and will let them decide for themselves. 



Overall, your the judge of this debate, so the winner is up to you.



I hope you vote CON. 

Victor Bjerrum, thank you for debating with me. 

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-06-25 02:52:13
| Speak Round
Victor BjerrumVictor Bjerrum (PRO)
Summary

My opponents arguments 

1. Intelligent Design is too undeveloped to teach.
2. Intelligent Design is a religious concept, which could undermine the separation of church and state.
3. Intelligent Design is not science.

My arguments

1. Teaching Intelligent Design in schools would make teaching truly neutral.
2. Intelligent Design should be taught to increase understanding of other peoples views.


Rebuttals

Round 2

Mine

1. Wikipedia is an unreliable source.
2. Intelligent Design would not create bias towards other religions.
3. Intelligent Design would help students understand both sides and their arguments, so they know why they believe what they believe.

Opponent 

1. Wikipedia quote is true.
2. Intelligent Design implies the existence of God and would create a bias towards the religions, undermining the separation of church and state.
3. Intelligent Design is a religious argument and is unscientific.


Round 3

Mine

1. Intelligent Design does not imply Christianity or God.
2. Intelligent Design should be taught to increase understanding of other peoples religious views and culture.

Opponent 

1. Intelligent Design is an argument for God which would create bias toward religious beliefs and undermine the separation of church and state.
2. Intelligent Design is pseudoscience, so it doesn't belong in our schools.


Our models

Opponent

Teach the flaws of evolution along with the evidence but keep Intelligent Design out of public schools since its religiously bias.

Mine

Teach ID as a way to make pupils understand how other people think letting the school give them the information intead of the internet. ID dont in any way imply that its about Christianity it could also imply aliens, allah or  even the flying spaghetti monster.



I hope you vote PRO


Return To Top | Posted:
2016-06-25 03:40:07
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard
The definition I provided from intelligentdesign.org is the most accurate one.
Posted 2016-06-24 20:37:28
CrowCrow
I was talking more about using a definition on intelligent design from intelligentdesign.org
Posted 2016-06-24 20:35:20
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard
@Stag
I wasn't going to use a source, but then I decided to use wikipedia, it doesn't make my argument worse either unless I use it as a center to my argument.
Posted 2016-06-24 18:00:35
CrowCrow
@DHS15698

Watch your sources.

It might be better to use no sources at all, then to use sources that could easily be called out as biased or non-credible. It doesn't reflect well on the actual argument being made.
Posted 2016-06-24 12:26:41
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2016-06-26 02:59:37
CrowJudge: Crow
Win awarded to: Victor Bjerrum
Reasoning:
The primary reason for my decision is a large amount of strawman and irrelevant material from the opposition.

The affirmative framed a very simple argument, but it was a good one. It had universal appeal. The argument was that schools should be neutral in the theories they teach, and the role of the education system should be to provide non-biased insight.

While this argument for the most part standed by itself, and was not very well spoken, it was poorly contested by the opposition.

The contentions about intelligent design being a scientific subject were irrelevant. The affirmative never argued that intelligent design was science. The opposition just got caught up on this though. As long as intelligent design has a philosophical basis, whether it is a scientific subject or not fails to invalidate the belief.

One of the larger strawmans in this debate was how the opposition tried to frame the debate as an evolution vs intelligent design debate, which it was not. The affirmatives whole argument was that both theories should be taught, so I found myself confused on why the theory of evolution kept getting brought up.

There were a couple other beside the point arguments, notably the one about whether intelligent design was promoting religion. If a secular argument was attempting to be made here, there are way better ways it could of been done.



Feedback:
The main argument of the affirmative eventually needs to be addressed in detail.

All arguments need to be connected back to the position at least once. It should not be assumed that someone observing the debate is automatically going to connect an argument to a position.

Spelling and grammar need to be checked. If it is too messy, it effects the readability of the debate, and therefore the persuasiveness.

Debaters should write their arguments like a persuasive essay rather than an opinionated column. A public speaking mindset should be in place, even when doing online written debates.
1 user rated this judgement as biased
1 user rated this judgement as good
8 comments on this judgement
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard
@Stag
"The contentions about intelligent design being a scientific subject were irrelevant. The affirmative never argued that intelligent design was science."
He never said it wasn't either, in fact, he implied it was scientific by saying that both sides(evolution) should be taught. I was also the only one to provide a definition, and the definition was it being a scientific theory. Go by what was discussed in the debate rather than what you think ID is.
"One of the larger strawmans in this debate was how the opposition tried to frame the debate as an evolution vs intelligent design debate, which it was not."
But the affirmative went along with it and in fact was the one to bring up first by saying both sides should be taught, obviously meaning Intelligent Design vs Evolution. Your just trying to bring what you think it is in your judgement, how ID is defined is in the debate, don't bring what you think it is in the judgement. There was a definition I provided that the affirmative seemed to agree with.

"The primary reason for my decision is a large amount of strawman and irrelevant material from the opposition."
Your throwing the burden of proof on me, you are implying that since I poorly contested the argument, the affirmative side wins by default.
I believe you are being unfair to my side, I appreciate your judgement, but your bringing your own assumptions into your judgement.
I think this deserves a Biased.
Posted 2017-03-14 19:49:23
CrowCrow
@DHS15608

It does not matter who argues irrelevant material better. It is still beside the point.

The affirmation had a convincing main argument. It wasn't touched at all by the opposition.

I do not judge by burden of proof. My style of judging is reflective of the purpose of debates in practice, which is to be more convincing than the other guy.

I drop all my preconceived notions at the door, but do not disregard my sense. I found myself more convinced by the affirmation.

I hope that clarifies my judgement further.
Posted 2016-08-22 00:51:21
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard
@Stag
You clarified it a little, but you say my definition of ID is irrelevant, you have your own assumption of what ID is and you seem to think I didn't define it right.
"The contentions about intelligent design being a scientific subject were irrelevant. The affirmative never argued that intelligent design was science."
I argued that it wasn't science, my opponent never even responded to that. The definition I provided presented ID as a scientific theory and I even pointed out why I think it doesn't belong in science class or a religions class. So, it would be relevant.
Posted 2017-03-14 19:49:23
CrowCrow
I never said your definition was irrelevant. How you applied your definition to your position most definitely was.

You made the argument that it wasn't science, which was irrelevant because the affirmation never made the claim that it was. He only advocated that it should be taught.
Posted 2016-08-22 00:51:21
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard
@Stag
"You made the argument that it wasn't science, which was irrelevant because the affirmation never made the claim that it was. He only advocated that it should be taught."
That it is not really science was part of my case for why it shouldn't be taught. I argued it was pseudoscience, so it didn't belong anywhere in school. I provided a definition that implied it was scientific and presumed that definition throughout the debate. My opponent argued it could open up new possibilities, I responded by saying that is religious in nature which would bring bias to other religions. The affirmative implied that it was science by saying we should teach both sides, so I assumed they had the same definition.
Posted 2017-03-14 19:49:23
adminadmin
@Stag I'm actually considering whether this runs afoul of the community judging standard because it assumes irrelevant material was substantive in the reasoning on the decision, when this is in fact now expressly prohibited. Would you please correct it to clarify?

@DHS15608 - to prevent future unfairness, is there something we could write in to the community judging standard to ensure judgments are fair?
Posted 2016-06-26 05:51:19
CrowCrow
@admin

Irrelevant material is substantive to a degree. It is counter-persuasive, creates a confusing position, and disengages observers. In this context though, the whole point was that it had no substance, and the irrelevant arguments kept getting shelf time instead of the main idea which was completely ignored by the opposition.

What is this nonsense about a community judging standard? You used to be a huge spokesman for every judge having the freedom to use their own styles, and for adding platforms to discuss and offer advice.

You eventually convinced me on that, and now you are reverting to a judging standard? I know a lot of people from DDO come here and get fussy about certain RFD and BOP, but that is one of the things that sucks about DDO.

The whole standard thing is a pile of muck.
Posted 2016-08-22 00:51:21
adminadmin
@Stag - consider reading the rules of the debate.

The community standard reflected the wishes of some community members to have moderated judgments. I opposed it but was overruled something like 5-1. Huge outcry, people whined, something had to give. There was also very strong support for it in the poll. So we are trialing a community-written judging standard. Most of the material is a mix of my ideas with those of Bifurcations, who is herself a superstar RL judge.

Of course, you can opt out of the community standard when you set up a debate. Making it opt-out is a trial thing for now. Changing to opt-in is possible.
Posted 2016-06-26 08:35:27
2016-06-29 04:07:10
gavstone21Judge: gavstone21
Win awarded to: Victor Bjerrum

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • 4000 characters per round
  • Reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 1 day
  • Time to vote: 1 week
  • Time to prepare: 3 hours
This is a random challenge. See the general rules for random challenges at http://www.edeb8.com/resources/General+rules+for+random+debates+%28version+2%29